Pages

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

"Back-Alley" Argument Disrespects Women's Intelligence

We've all heard the pro-choice argument that if abortion is made illegal again, women will be forced to go to dangerous back-alley abortionists, and women will die as a result.

There are many pro-life responses to this. You can explain that maternal deaths from abortion actually decreased before Roe v. Wade, due to advances in emergency medicine and antibiotics. You can point out that legal providers are frequently unsafe anyway. You can bring up all the international research showing that it is possible for a country to have pro-life policies and good maternal health outcomes.

But perhaps the best argument of all is one that is rarely brought to the forefront: the pro-choice argument about "back-alley" abortions assumes that women are stupid and/or without meaningful agency.

Women will be forced to avail themselves of illegal abortion procedures, abortion advocates say. They'll have to. It's inevitable. The idea that they might choose life instead? Preposterous.

In short, they are saying that the average American woman, living after the reversal of Roe, would be completely incapable of the following train of thought:
This pregnancy hasn't come at a good time. There's a pregnancy center a couple miles from here that might be able to help me out, but will that be enough? I suppose I could take a semester off. Or maybe I could take online classes instead. Will I have to take out a loan? Move back in with my parents? Get a second job? Go on welfare? Place my baby with an adoptive family? I'm not thrilled about any of these options. On the other hand, they are much better than the option of sticking a sharp object up my privates and hoping for the best.
Of course, whether or not it's legal, there will always be a few people who make unwise decisions. I recently became aware of the fact that women are dying from black-market silicone butt injections. Cosmetic surgery is obviously legal, but legitimate doctors refuse to perform this particular procedure due to its risks. The alternative procedures that cosmetic surgeons are willing to do are prohibitively expensive. So you have a situation where women are risking their lives to exercise full control over their bodies.

Raise your hand if you think that the solution to the butt injection problem is to make the procedure available on demand and without apology.

Raise your hand if you think that that's a horrible idea and maybe, just maybe, the better approach is to attack the root cause (e.g. body image issues) and continue to punish the sleazebags who profit off of women's suffering.

That's the difference between the pro-choice and pro-life view in a nutshell. I'll be the first to acknowledge that abortion alternatives aren't perfect. More can, and should, be done. But we have made significant progress since Roe. There are now more pro-life pregnancy centers than abortion facilities in the United States. We've come a long way when it comes to the prevention of unplanned pregnancy, too. There are real options for women other than abortion, and after the restoration of the right to life, any woman in her right mind would exercise them.

141 comments:

Coyote said...

Great article, but I also want to add that one can make a similar argument in regards to the perpetrators being less likely to get hurt and/or killed if things such as rape, post-natal killing, assault, theft, child abuse, et cetera became legal.

loldor said...

or maybe just come up with a safer way to make your butt bigger other than silicone injections :P as far as i know its not even considered a method that works thats why its illegal...

Drew Hymer said...

i've been making this point and i'm glad to see you make it too.

Women are not forced into killing their babies. If there are cases where women are forced then we should prosecute those who are doing the forcing.

Making abortion illegal doesn't force women to kill their babies illegally. Women are not mindless automatons whose Y chromosome drives them to murder.

Women who choose to risk their own lives killing their babies are doing something very foolish. It seems idiotic to suggest that because some women will do something extremely foolish therefore killing babies should be legal.

MotherSetonsDaughter said...

You said what I've been thinking for years! We need to give women more credit, and if they don't deserve it, we need to find out why and remedy it!

Cyanmoon1 said...

There is no societal change or governmental support that would have induced me to keep my unwanted pregnancy. My life is better for having had an abortion: I have no regrets.

Cyanmoon1 said...

Women do not have a Y chromosome

Crystal Kupper said...

Genius! Loved this blog.

JDC said...

I don't think he was saying that they did.

Coyote said...

It feels good to have the luxury of avoiding responsibility for your willing actions and decisions, doesn't it?

Drew Hymer said...

There's nothing more liberating than dumping your baby in a garbage can.

KB said...

Yeah, George Zimmerman had no regrets. Doesn't change the fact that another human is tragically killed because somebody else felt they were a problem.

Rachel B said...

I used to be a lot more like you. I used to think that "choice" meant the choosing to kill a baby. Choice also includes using contraception to avoid unwanted pregnancy so that you can choose when and with whom to have a baby. Or you can choose to have a baby that is the result of an unplanned pregnancy. But now, especially after having my own daughter, I know "just having the baby" isn't that simple. Pregnancy is not hands-down the safest option. I've known women with gestational diabetes. Now they and their child are at much higher risk of developing diabetes later in life. My mother nearly died in delivery giving birth to her 4th child in 5 years. C-sections are still a form of surgery & not without it's risks. My delivery was very high-risk, but I am thankful to the skilled doctors & staff. Not all women are so lucky if they are on Medicaid or have crappy insurnace. While post-abortion depression has not been substantiated by the medical literature there is a large body of research about postpartum depression. It can last months if not years so for some women you can't just take a semester off. And if she tries to be superwomen & stays in school while caring for a newborn & struggling with ppd (like I did) she may end up failing out of school. And if she's a minor, she will likely never graduate HS.

CPCs are not the best source of information. They make adoption seem easy & free, when it is anything but. If the mother puts the baby up for adoption, she may still have to cover her hospital bills, especially if she's uninsured and she may need to retain a lawyer to make sure her interests aren't neglected & if money is tight, how can she afford that? When and how is she expected to do all this research to make sure she & her baby are not taken advantage of? Real life isn't like "Juno".

And what about mother's who find out that the baby they wanted has anencephaly or some other fatal fetal anomaly? Is it more moral & humane to make her sustain that life at the risk of her own mental health? How do you think it feels to be asked all the normal, joyous questions an expecting mother is asked by friends, family and strangers,all while full-knowing that the baby may not survive long after delivery? Sure, there are women who choose to carry the doomed fetus to full-term, but at least IT WAS HER CHOICE TO MAKE!!!

And I won't even go into impregnated victims of rape & incest.

KB said...

Being pro-choice and being pro-contraception are not remotely the same thing. Plenty of us here who don't believe it should be legal to kill a human being, regardless of their geographic location, strongly support contraception. I personally think it should be a free thing and would be more than happy to see my tax dollars spent to ensure each and every person could get it and learn how to use it properly.

And your argument is exactly what this article is addressing. Did you even read it? Are there problems for women who get unexpectedly pregnant? Yes. But it is absolutely foolish to say that the best way to solve the problem of people under duress in pregnancy is to kill somebody. Let's solve the problem of poverty in the US by killing all the poor people! We can get rid of the drug abuse problem by killing anyone who takes drugs! Let's get rid of the teen pregnancy rate by killing all the pre-born! This is all the same logic. You are just trying to erase the symptom, rather than the cause.

This article suggests that it is far better to attack the root of the problem (lack of access to quality medical care, lack of access to good adoption options, lack of access to sound medical advice, lack of access to financial and nutritional resources required to raise a child if that is what she wants to do).

Cyanmoon1 said...

I stand by my decision. Nobody but me knows what's best for my life.

Elisabet said...

True. But you don't know what was best for the baby either.

Elisabet said...

I personally think the women who kill themselves in self-induced abortions are suffering from tokophobia.
The fear and anxiety they are feeling is so great they would rather choose death than go on with a "parasite" inside their body.
They know that they will probably die but they would rather be dead than give birth.
Curing tokophobia would be a huge pro-life medical achievement.

Considering said...

Women just don't want to be forced to do anything. why not trust women to consider all the factors in their lives, and then make a decision?

Ann said...

How does one become pro-butt-injection on demand no apologies? Not that I personally will ever need it butt...

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Do you think that having no regret means your actions were right, or moral?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If I decide it's best for my life to kill my toddler, would you support me in that decision?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Why have laws at all? Shouldn't we just trust everyone to do the right thing?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Quite obviously, you've never stepped foot inside a CPC or talked to anyone who works at one, because you're simply bleating pro-abortion propaganda. Why not investigate for yourself?

Cyanmoon1 said...

It seems that everyone here would like life's situations to be black and white, moral and immoral; the truth is that's simply not the case.

'Having no regret' means that after careful consideration, I made a decision and it was the right one. I have a right to bodily sovereignty: my body is mine. I am not ashamed.

Cyanmoon1 said...

This proposition is as demented as that which says gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals and teapots! Your toddler is an independent being with its own thoughts and feelings who does not need to live off your body to survive.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Which doesn't answer my question.

Does having no regret mean that your actions were right, or moral?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

My toddler is not independent, actually. If he didn't have adults around to care for his needs, he would likely die. As for having thoughts and feelings - are you saying that it is moral to kill those who are comatose for convenience's sale as well? Or newborns?

Cyanmoon1 said...

Yes my actions were right, and yes, they were also moral. You can contradict me if you like, but your opinion, being based on no actual knowledge of my life or circumstances, is worth nothing.

Cyanmoon1 said...

This has devolved into an irrational conversation so I am going to excuse myself.

Coyote said...

Actually, JoAnna has a point. You might not consider prenatal human beings to be persons/worthy of rights, but someone else (ex. Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, Mary Anne Warren, the authors of the after-birth abortion paper) could likewise not consider human infants to be persons/worthy of rights.

Coyote said...

Yes, and I have a right to my money and the right not to be held responsible for the decisions of others. However, I would still be forced to pay child support if I ever accidentally got someone pregnant (which is why I currently abstain from having sex).

Coyote said...

Because there is another human being involved here as well.

Coyote said...

OK, please share your life and circumstances here, if you want to, that is.

Save the Tiny Humans said...

Irrational or you just couldn't discredit what she said?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

If you believe that logic and reason are irrational, then perhaps it's best if you do excuse yourself.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Do you believe that your actions were right *because* you have no regrets?

If so, that poses a logical problem. For example, if Ted Bundy did not regret the murders he performed, does that mean those murders were also right/moral?

If not, then your lack of regret for your actions has no bearing on the objective morality of your actions.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Read his comment again. "Women are not mindless automatons whose *lack of* a Y chromosome drives them to murder"

Mindy said...

Your 'train of thought' piece is fantastic and so obvious.

Mindy said...

The argument that a toddler is more valuable than a fetus sounds compelling, but then you are saying that humans have value based on their level of intelligence or personality. So were the Nazis right in killing the mentally handicapped?

The pro-life position views all lives as valuable no matter their place on the intelligence scale, simply because they are human. And in the case of most fetuses, they will grow to be those toddlers you speak of if you would let them!

Mindy said...

Sounds like you are making a good argument for being very careful about sex and contraceptives.

Coyote said...

Actually, I am politically anti-abortion, but I don't agree that we should simply treat all human beings as valuable simply because they are members of our species. That would be speciesist, and I strongly dislike speciesism because it could certainly give non-human aliens a carte blanche to discriminate against human beings in the future. I think that human beings should be given legal personhood and rights if they will develop certain mental abilities in the future.

Also, as I previously said, one can also make an argument that human infants likewise shouldn't be given legal personhood and rights.

Considering said...

Laws aren't about doing the right thing. Laws are a way for people to live together in groups, it's a reflection of a common understanding, the group decides these are things we agree are to be avoided enough to warrant imposing penalties if you break the commonly held peace


So no, we don't trust people to just do the right thing, because the right thing can vary from individual to individual as we see in the whole abortion debate.

Considering said...

True there is, but there is also the mother to consider. And if she doesn't want to go through a pregnancy, with all that it entails, then her rights to her life, to her body, should not be waived because people other than her are squeamish about abortion

Coyote said...

No one here is advocating stripping the woman/mother of her right to life and right to bodily autonomy. I also want to point out that I (and probably many, if not most or all) of the people here support a maternal life exception for abortion. Thus, I am not advocating forcing women to give up their lives for their offspring. However, if the woman's/mother's willing actions create a situation where in order to exercise her right to bodily autonomy, she must violate the right to life which her prenatal offspring should have, then she should not be able to exercise her right to bodily autonomy as long as a conflict-of-rights situation remains (or is supposed to remain). This is similar to me having the right to wave my fist, but me being unable to exercise this right if I go join a crowd and male myself completely surrounded by other individuals on all sides. (And Yes, I am aware that there is a difference between the right to bodily autonomy and the right to wave one's fist, but this is beside my point here.)

Also, it is not simply that we are squeamish about abortion. I am squeamish about gay guys tongue-kissing each other, but I still think that it should be legal. We consider abortion to be morally unjustifiable, similar to how we consider rape, theft, assault, child abuse, domestic violence, et cetera to be morally unjustifiable.

Just curious--what is your position on forcing males to pay child support?

Coyote said...

I think that JoAnna is saying that all of our laws are based on someone's view of what is morally justifiable and morally unjustifiable.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So, you believe it is sometimes justified to kill an innocent human being?

Rachel B said...

A toddler or newborn are NOT the same as a fetus which is completely dependent upon the mother to fulfill it's biological functions. If the mother dies, the fetus dies; if the mother of a toddler or newborn dies, the child is left to relatives or put in foster care. You are simply equivocating.

I am sorry, Cyanmoon1, that you are being judged & criticzed for what was your decision & your right. Yet another problem of the supposed pro-life movement; your life doesn't matter to them nearly as much as the life of a person who was never born. I support & defend your right to decide your reproductive fate.

Rachel B said...

Again, I am so sorry for the public shaming you are suffering at the hands of these supposedly compassionate people.

Cyanmoon1 said...

What, so you all can keep telling me what a selfish, amoral baby killer I am? I deliberately choose not to share my story, specifically because I am not interested in validation from others. The only person who needs to be satisfied with my reasons is me.

Rachel B said...

Coyote, it's not just men who have to pay child support. I am paying out the ass to my abusive ex who basically legally kidnapped my daughter since I wouldn't leave home or my daughter during our divorce, I had no job & he cut me off from all our money. So what I had feared most came true, he has residential custody (in my state, not the same as sole custody), so he gets her most of the time, he keeps her in FT daycare, even though I offered to take time off work to keep her in part time. So I have to pay him about 30% of my income. For a while I was paying 65% after taxes for about 6 months (I earn less than $30K annually) & I am in terrible financial shape. I don't have enough money to buy her new new shoes & her father refuses to put on her new shoes or clothes he got for her on days when she comes to my place.
If I get a tax refund, it automatically goes to him, even if I have been employed & paying every payment via garnishment. But since I make too much before the garnishment, I don't qualify for public assistance, which I desperately need. My abuser is manipulating the system to keep me so broke that I can't afford to fight in court for more time with my daughter. So yeah, our system is broken & at it's worst is used punitively. In my case, it has actually created a cycle on poverty that threatens my daughter, even though the intention is to support her.

Rachel B said...

Yes, of course! Believe it or not, I want there to be less abortion. However, a ban would solve nothing given the current state of things. I do agree with the author, more needs to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancy & to support mothers who decide to keep or at least give birth then put it up for adoption.

Rachel B said...

Yes, I did indeed read the article & it seemed to me that the author has not put herself in that situation. Yes, most women having an unplanned pregnancy do in fact give birth. If I were to find out I was pregnant today, given the horrible financial mess I am going through to the point where I am having trouble supporting myself, much less my own daughter, I don't think I would have an abortion. But I don't dare make that decision for every woman in a similar situation & I don't think our government should either.

Rachel B said...

It's quite obvious that you make assumption about people before you get a chance to know them. And I don't bleat, I am quite capable of thinking for myself. Remember, I was once adamantly pro-life for non-religious reasons too.

So FYI my sister used to work for a CPC. She is religious & it was too, however she eventually quit after she was reprimanded for suggesting contraceptives to some of the clients. And one day, I do hope to enter one myself to see how they treat their clients first-hand.

Cyanmoon1 said...

Thanks. I may have missed where they claimed to be compassionate, though...? Jk. I'm sure they all think of themselves that way.

I am not afraid of honest debate, which is why I commented in the first place; I wasn't trying to be inflammatory. What I won't do is remain in conversation with anyone who is personally insulting as opposed to respectfully disagreeing with me. I also have no interest in debating how abortion is different than infanticide. I mean, really.

I get that this topic brings up strong feelings- I've lived this issue firsthand and I'm not trying to be callous. I'm just tired of being told how I should feel: guilty, ashamed, sorry, dirty, broken... I could go on! You can tell me how you think I should feel, but you can't make me feel it. I am sincere when I say abortion was the best option for me and I don't regret making that choice.

Jennifer Jones said...

So basically you're saying it's better to just off the baby than chance getting hurt yourself? Makes total sense. Why didn't I think of that when all three of my babies had to be c-section deliveries? Especially when our third baby was not planned and was conceived during a time of great financial strain. What a jerk I am for chancing my own life for the life of my precious baby girl. But you know what? God prevailed and we NEVER go without what we NEED and we adore our little angel. So glad I wasn't selfish and chose to murder her. I guess that kinda makes me her hero in this society of "kill it if it ain't convenient" mentality.

Jennifer Jones said...

ALSO, although you did not go into the product of incest or rape issue, I would like to say that I know a wonderful woman who was raped and as a result conceived a child. She almost aborted, but a pro-life advocate spoke with her outside the abortion clinic and she chose LIFE. Her daughter is a teenager now and is adored by her mother and father. Not the rapist, but the husband of my friend whom loves her the same as he loves the other children they have together. My friend says she could not imagine her life without her daughter, and her daughter is separate from the crime committed against her. Do not punish the child for the sins of their father.

Rachel B said...

Seriously, good for you and I am happy your friend is happy with her choice. I just don't agree that it's right to force or manipulate and coerce everyone to chose life. When it's illegal then it ceases to be a choice, it's a mandate.


And I refuse to label women who do chose to abort as child murderers or try to shame them about their decision with what happens to their body & their lives. I used to and I am ashamed that I ever did.

Coyote said...

First of all, I am not interested in shaming you. Secondly, fetuses are not babies. I am aware that the debate over personhood is not black and white and is even more grey than *you* realize. I am simply interested in learning about other people's life experiences--is this too much to ask for?

Coyote said...

"Coyote, it's not just men who have to pay child support."

I am perfectly aware of this. However, only men need to pay child support due to someone else's decision.

I am completely repulsed and disgusted by what your husband did to you and your daughter. I strongly agree with you that the law in regards to this should be changed so that it is more fair to people such as yourself and to your daughter. Also, your ex-husband appears to be a genuine asshole, no offense.

Coyote said...

In regards to infanticide, I hate to say it, but in some cases, it is less black and white that *you* think it is. Also, the answer in regards to whether or not human infants *should be* persons isn't as black and white as *you* think it is either.

Where exactly did I condemn you here? I don't think that I did this anywhere, and if I did, then I apologize. Considering that the debate over prenatal personhood is not completely black and white (among other things), I do my best to avoid judging women who get elective abortions as long as they do not force unwilling males to pay child support (if they *do* do this, then I am open to judging them).

Coyote said...

To be fair, in the future, we might develop artificial womb technology which will not make fetuses dependent on any single individual.

Also, if a mother of a newborn dies on a desert(ed) island, then the newborn will die as well as he/she can only feed on his/her mother's breast milk.

"And parents do have the right to pull the plug or issue a DNR on a
terminally ill or a child in a permanent vegetative state. And many
children die because insurance won't cover a "pre-existing condition"
(not that I am condoning that)."

Well, embryos and fetuses are generally not terminally ill, and they are generally not permanently unconscious. Also, isn't Obamacare (a law which I strongly support) going to help children with a "pre-existing condition"?

"Yet another problem of the supposed pro-life movement; your life doesn't
matter to them nearly as much as the life of a person who was never
born."

Who here suggested that her life didn't matter nearly as much as the life of her prenatal child?

Coyote said...

In regards to shaming people for making (or trying to make) various decisions which are not black and white, it is not like politically anti-abortion people have a monopoly on this. I've seen and heard a fair number of pro-choicers who have shamed, condemn, criticized, and ridiculed men for not wanting to pay child support or even for supporting giving men this option. In addition, these pro-choicers have often told men to "keep it in [their] pants," something which would probably be considered slut-shaming if one told a similar thing ("keep your legs closed") to a woman. All of this judging, shaming, and condemning occurs despite the fact that these pro-choicers do not know the circumstances of these males' lives and do not know the goals and priorities of these males.

Coyote said...

"However, a ban would solve nothing given the current state of things."

Depending on how widespread this ban on most abortions is, it might very well reduce the number of elective abortions being performed.

James said...

after reading the article and browsing through the comments, one thing I don't see mentioned is the shame of pregnancy out of wedlock in 1973 compared to now.
I think it's safe to say people getting pregnant who aren't married was a lot more taboo topic at that time and probably thought of as something that had to be kept quiet. Sure, even today not everybody would be accepting or non shaming but I'd like to think we've come a way in the last 40 years.

So if abortion law was to revert back to the way it was in 1972, I think there would be fewer back alley abortions today not only because there are more pregnancy resource centers but because there is not as much of a stigma (although it still exists and that is shameful) of an unmarried woman revealing she is pregnant.

DarkCougar555 said...

Well, if Cyanmoon1 don't regret for killed her pre-born child in her first term, then is it moral decision to not feel a regret for second or third term abortion where it can kill a child, too?


Just wonder.

Coyote said...

What about an "after-birth abortion" or a "fourth trimester abortion"?

Anyway, I don't want to appear as though I'm shaming anyone here, so I am not going to answer your questions here.

DarkCougar555 said...

You can e-mail me at DarkCougar555 at yahoo dot com instead. =)


I'm interested what you would say.

Coyote said...

That's OK. I'm a member of the same non-religious atheist and agnostic pro-life group on Facebook as you are. I haven't been on Facebook itself for a very long time during the summer, but I keep track through my e-mail of what various people in my Facebook groups say.

I will probably go back more on Facebook in the future.

In regards to your question, here is what I am willing to say--if someone got an elective second-trimester, third-trimester, and/or "after-birth" abortion in certain very specific cases, then I would not judge her for doing this as long as doing this was legal and as long as she did not force any man to pay child support (if she did force men/a man to pay child support, then I am open to judging her for what she did). I hate to say it, but I don't think that the answer to the question of whether or not prenatal human beings and human infants should be persons is as clear-cut as most pro-lifers *and* most pro-choicers think it is.

As a side note, I strongly detest pro-choice misandry when it comes to forcing males to pay child support.

Coyote said...

I probably agree with your post, and I also want to point out that the impression which I am getting that that most women who got and/or will get back-alley abortions were desperate and/or stupid. If we can find ways to educate more women about this and find more ways to help pregnant women, then we can probably reduce the desires of many/some women to get illegal back-alley abortions.

Cyanmoon1 said...

I have to admit that you have me utterly confused. You say you're not interested in shaming me, but when I see some of the posts you've upvoted (throw my baby in a garbage can? My baby was tragically killed because it was a problem?) I find it hard to take you at your word! Sorry, I only share my story with people I trust.

Coyote said...

Where exactly is that comment which states that "... it was a problem?" As for the first comment you mentioned (the garbage can one), its wording might have been a bit blunt, but his point that abortion is convenient and that a life is ended by abortion (whether or not you think that this life should be given legal personhood is a separate question) is accurate.

Coyote said...

If one claims that one's opinion on a specific case of a specific thing is worthless due to a lack of knowledge about the circumstances in this case, then why can't one make the same argument in regards to certain issues other than abortion? Why shouldn't someone state "Infanticide is generally wrong, but my opinion is worthless on [insert name here] killing their infant because I do not know the circumstances in this case"?

Coyote said...

I am not unequivocally opposed to letting people marry their teapots. I am opposed to having the government grant benefits and whatnot to people who are married to their teapots.

Also, for the record, I am in favour of gay marriage.

Considering said...

We justify it all the time by not ensuring people have adequate shelter, food, healthcare

Considering said...

If men don't want to pay child support then perhaps they should ensure that they only sleep with women that completely agree with them on what to do if they have an unplanned pregnancy

Coyote said...

The problem with this is that this doesn't always work.

Considering said...

Exactly. You can't plan for everything, you can't count on people not wanting to rethink.


You do the best you can and sometimes unplanned things happen and you have to deal


This is why abortion, along with adoption or keeping a baby is what prochoice is in favour of. Not banning any options,

Coyote said...

Would you support allowing men and women to sign a legal contract before having sex in front of a lawyer and/or notary which allows the man to opt-out of paying child support in the event that the woman gets pregnant as a result of this sex and then decides to give birth?

Considering said...

They could probably do that now. Personally if that is how they would like to approach their relationship then why not?

Coyote said...

I don't think that they are able to do this right now, at least not here in the U.S. (I don't know what country you live in, so yeah). Here in the U.S., even males who have been de jure *raped* have been forced to pay child support.

http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

I greatly admire your position, even though I am leaning towards disagreeing with your views on abortion.

The laws and court decisions in regards to child support and me being a male and everything have caused me to completely abstain from having sex before marriage even if I became pro-choice in the future.

Also, it appears that we disagree on whether or not embryos and fetuses should have legal personhood. Can you please tell me your rationale for your position?

Considering said...

Now I should point out that even if a man could sign a contract and opt out of child support I would bind him to providing medical history and information so that if at some future point the child wants to contact him they could. I've known too many adopted people struggle with closed adoption issues.


Legal personhood attaches at birth. I see no reason at all to change that

Considering said...

for me it's about what rights you remove from the mother to ensure personhood to an unborn child.


I went through a hard pregnancy. I wanted to be pregnant but I wouldn't wish what it did to me on anyone. If I had to go through that against my will, I probably would not have survived

Coyote said...

"Legal personhood attaches at birth. I see no reason at all to change that"

So you support elective late-term abortions?

Also, in regards to the legal contract, if the child would successfully contact his/her father, his/her father would still not be forced to pay child support, correct?

Coyote said...

"for me it's about what rights you remove from the mother to ensure personhood to an unborn child"

You don't have to remove any rights from the mother.

"I went through a hard pregnancy. I wanted to be pregnant but I wouldn't
wish what it did to me on anyone. If I had to go through that against
my will, I probably would not have survived"

What do you mean by your last sentence here?

Also, as a side note, I would love to be pregnant (despite being a male) and I would be willing to do whatever or almost whatever it takes if this was possible, (relatively) safe, and cheap sometime during my lifetime.

Considering said...

You can write anything you want into the terms of a contract as long as both parties agree. If you found a woman who was willing to sign it, why not?


Now it would open a good question about whether or not the child, who was not party to the agreement couldn't then sue on their own behalf.


but that's just a mental exercise

Coyote said...

The child didn't exist at the time of the agreement, and we have a right not to be held responsible for the decisions of others.

Coyote said...

Yeah, I strongly disagree with lawmakers and/or whomever that people should not have adequate shelter, food, healthcare. I think that everyone should have these things.

Considering said...

Of course it removes rights from the mother if she suddenly no longer has sovereignty over her own body.

My pregnancy was extremely difficult. I also suffer from depression & anxiety. If I had not wanted, with all my heart,to be pregnant, if it had been forced on me, the chances that I would have considered suicide was very high.

As it was my health was also endangered and I ended up taking steps to protect me and my child which I could take because it was a planned pregnancy but impacted my financial situation very badly

The key in your last sentence is "if this was possible, (relatively) safe, and cheap sometime during my lifetime" Lots of women who seek abortion do so because at the time they fall pregnant it is not safe, or cheap (or many other things)

Coyote said...

"Of course it removes rights from the mother if she suddenly no longer has sovereignty over her own body."

Not quite--she still has the right to bodily autonomy. She should simply be unable to exercise this right (at least generally) at the expense of the fetus's right to life if she creates a conflict-of-rights situation (by having legally consensual sex).

"My pregnancy was extremely difficult. I also suffer from depression
& anxiety. If I had not wanted, with all my heart,to be pregnant, if
it had been forced on me, the chances that I would have considered
suicide was very high."

Did you ever see a medical professional in regards to this? I think that there should be an exception for abortion for suicidal females who want to get one, on the condition that they undergo mental health treatment beforehand (and are still judged to be suicidal afterwards).

"As it was my health was also endangered and I ended up taking steps to
protect me and my child which I could take because it was a planned
pregnancy but impacted my financial situation very badly"

Everything worked out in the end for you, correct? I would hate to be in your situation, no offense.

"The key in your last sentence is "if this was possible, (relatively)
safe, and cheap sometime during my lifetime" Lots of women who seek
abortion do so because at the time they fall pregnant it is not safe, or
cheap (or many other things)"

Yes, I am aware of this. Of course, males being forced to pay child support is also not "cheap" for the man, and it could also theoretically shorten a man's lifespan--for instance, if a man wants to get cryogenically preserved (and then revived) or wants to buy future rejuvenating medicine but is unable to afford it due to the fact that he lost a huge amount of money due to being forced to pay child support.

Considering said...

She has rights over her own body, except when she's pregnant, at which time she doesn't is your argument?

To a pregnant woman that pretty much equals "while you are pregnant you don't have rights over your own body"

If the rights of the unborn supersede her rights, her rights are still removed. consent to sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy although I know that prolife would like to link the two

"Did you ever see a medical professional in regards to this?"

Of course. Knowing that I had issues with depression in advance it was something my dr and I watched over.

Will the state provide the healthcare needed? or will it be just that women who can afford to be monitored through their pregnancies have that option?

"Everything worked out in the end for you, correct? I would hate to be in your situation, no offense."

Yes and no. The financial impact was hard, and messed about with my career. As a self-employed person there are fewer protections for me. Although there are few enough to protect women's jobs now.

"theoretically shorten a man's lifespan--for instance, if a man wants to get cryogenically preserved...."



I think that if you reasons for not wanting to pay child support need to invoke science fiction then you might want to make sure you only have sex with women you've decided to have children with :)

Coyote said...

"She has rights over her own body, except when she's pregnant, at which time she doesn't is your argument?

To a pregnant woman that pretty much equals "while you are pregnant you don't have rights over your own body"

If the rights of the unborn supersede her rights, her rights are
still removed. consent to sex doesn't equal consent to pregnancy
although I know that prolife would like to link the two"

There is a huge difference between temporarily being unable to exercise one's rights and not having these rights at all. You are correct--consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. However, neither is consent to sex equal to consent to paying child support, and us men are currently forced to pay child support anyway.

"Of course. Knowing that I had issues with depression in advance it was something my dr and I watched over."

Good.

"Will the state provide the healthcare needed? or will it be just that
women who can afford to be monitored through their pregnancies have that
option?"

I'm tempted to say Yes, since otherwise these women could simply attempt suicide instead of refusing to pay their mental health treatment bills themselves.

"Yes and no. The financial impact was hard, and messed about with my
career. As a self-employed person there are fewer protections for me.
Although there are few enough to protect women's jobs now."

I am sorry in regards to your situation. What kind of protections are you talking about here? I am still pretty young and not that knowledgeable about all of this stuff.

"I think that if you reasons for not wanting to pay child support need to
invoke science fiction then you might want to make sure you only have
sex with women you've decided to have children with :)"

How do you know that reviving cryogencially preserved people is impossible? Also, how do you know that anti-aging and/or rejuvenative medical technology will never be available? And Yes, I am only going to have sex when I am married. Until that point, I will simply use the hand instead. I am also open to having sex with a woman *way* above reproductive age and/or having sex with a man (despite the fact that I am straight, I am *not* particularly repulsed by gay sex, especially when there is no or little tongue-kissing involved).

Considering said...

"There is a huge difference between temporarily being unable to exercise one's rights and not having these rights at all. You are correct--consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. However, neither is consent to sex equal to consent to paying child support, and us men are currently forced to pay child support anyway."

Is the core of your dispute with abortion that men have to pay child support so women should always have to go though unplanned pregnancies as a form of balance? payback?

If my rights are removed it doesn't matter if it's temporary or not. They are removed.

"I am sorry in regards to your situation. What kind of protections are you talking about here? I am still pretty young and not that knowledgeable about all of this stuff."

In my country there are laws re:mat leaves. As a self employed person non of that applied to me, there would be no job held for me so ending work to have my baby meant I was removing myself from the workforce with no income.

This is a very planned for pregnancy. The fact that the physical symptoms made me leave 5 months early was a burden of an additional 5 months with no income. most people can't do that.

Lots of women lose their jobs over pregnancies, being off, having unpaid time off is a massive burden. When people blow off pregnancy as just a simple little blip in your life, it's not. It's huge. It's transformative. And it shouldn't be taken lightly

If you can't manage it, you shouldn't be forced to do it against your will. If prolife was serious about lowering abortion rates they would be working for better job protection, better mat leaves, better assistance for mothers/children

LOL that's cute: " *not* particularly repulsed by gay sex, especially when there is no or little tongue-kissing involved)."

Considering said...

Nuts. Wrote and it didn't post. Ok trying again

"There is a huge difference between temporarily being unable to exercise one's rights and not having these rights at all. You are correct--consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. However, neither is consent to sex equal to consent to paying child support, and us men are currently forced to pay child support anyway."



Temporarily stripping me of my rights while forcing me to go through a process against my will that will transform my body, screw with my career, my emotions, relationships, is still stripping my of my rights and it's a cold comfort to be reassured in the best "there there dear" tones that it's only for a little while and to suit the qualms of strangers.


Re: protections. In my case there was no mat leave, no job held for me and I planned carefully for that. That I had to take an additional 5 mths off in advance of my delivery because I was ill made it harder but who, working perhaps part time jobs, can manage so long on no income.


As a society we don't especially do anything to assist mothers/children, we just talk about it. If we put into place assistance that was real, not dependent on the charity (whims) of others, you might see rates be reduced

DarkCougar555 said...

The forth term abortion is no different from murdering a 3 years old child. There are so plenty of parents (mother, father, or both) murdered their children of all ages-- with no regret.


Well, if someone don't really feel a depression for her child's death in early term pregnancy, then I suppose that there is good chance of parents wouldn't regret either 2nd or 3rd term abortion.


Of course, pro-aborts will insist they are only done for medical reasons. But, they forget some states in USA do allow 2nd and 3rd terms for any reason...


As for father's child support bill, it's not just child support he is forced to pay. A mother can place their child up for adoption without their child's father's knowledge. Which he will not have to pay it. It'd been done for years...

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Apples and oranges. No one, politicians included, are deliberately trying to kill human beings when they support or oppose legislation relating to shelter, food, and healthcare. (It is a different story for politicians who support pro-abortion laws, because they want to make it easier to kill children.)

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Was abortion the best option for your unborn child? Why did s/he deserve death?

Whether or not you regret making that choice is irrelevant to the fact that it's wrong to kill an innocent human being.

Considering said...

So in your world starving children, ensuring they have inadequate shelter and can't access health care is ok once they are born?


You're just pro birth

JoAnna Wahlund said...

There are plenty of secular CPCs out there, and even many of the religoiusly-affiliated ones offer contraceptives. (Most Protestant churches do not oppose contraception.)

But I am confused by your objection. You claimed CPCs portray adoption as an "easy" choice. Now you claim the reason you oppose some CPCs is because they don't encourage women to ingest carcinogens or insert foreign objects into their cervix/fallopian tubes -- instead, they encourage and support women in changing their behaviors and lifestyle choices. Even contraception, when used perfectly, can fail (and it fails more often when used imperfectly).

For the record, no CPC that I am aware of portrays adoption as an easy choice. But it is portrayed as preferable to killing an innocent human being.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No, I'm saying that no one opposes or supports legislation (in this country, to clarify) with the DIRECT INTENT of killing children. Unless you can link me to congressional testimony where a senator or representative is on record as saying, "I oppose Bill X because I want more children to die"?

Considering said...

Oh I understand. it's ok to indirectly kill children in your view. Even if you oppose or support legislation that you knew, in your heart, will take food or protections away from them

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Whether or not certain bills will be beneficial in terms of providing adequate food, healthcare, shelter, etc. is not black and white. There can be good reasons to oppose certain bills (for example, maybe Lawmaker Y opposes healthcare bill Z because she believes that it is financially wasteful, and she wants a bill that would be fiscally responsible while still achieving the same goals), and many times certain bills are opposed due to unrelated legislation that has been tacked on to them, not because the lawmaker has an objection to the bill itself.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

No, it's not okay to indirectly kill children. But you need to prove that the INTENT of these legislatures is to CAUSE THE DEATH OF CHILDREN with their vote.

In contrast, the direct intent of abortion is ALWAYS a dead child. If the child lives, the abortion was "botched." If the child dies, it was "successful."

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Also, taking food or protections away from children doesn't ensure their deaths. I believe in the principle of subsidiarity, in which it's up to the community closest to the children in need to provide the most help -- not the federal government. I can give you links to dozens of private, local charities set up to do just that.

Considering said...

So even knowing that they end result will be that children will be denied basics, that's ok, after they are born


Here's the thing. we do not have a society that encourages women to go through pregnancies when they are unplanned because we don't care. Caring costs money, and time and effort


Lip service to these issues while limiting women's options are all we have. Which is why many women decide not to proceed with a pregnancy if facing all sorts of other issues also and seeing a lack of real and practical support

JoAnna Wahlund said...

But really, take a look at your own logic here. "Some lawmakers oppose laws which may, in my opinion, keep hypothetical children from receiving food, shelter, or healthcare. Therefore, the solution is to keep abortion legal so these hypothetical children can just be killed before birth."

Seriously? Should we just kill all the born kids who are hungry while we're at it, so they don't have to suffer? That's essentially what you're supporting.

Considering said...

The intent of the legislators is to put money over the lives of children. Which, funny enough, is what prolife claims women are doing when they have abortions.


Learned from their lawmakers too well?

Considering said...

I have yet to hear a single prochoice person argue for killing invoncenient toddlers, while prolife seems to think that would be fine


My point is this: if we really, honestly wanted to encourage women to keep those children, and raise them, when we would create an environment that supported that..


We don't. We do the opposite.


I support women have the ability to look at their situations and make the best decision for them and their families. If you offer them more alternatives, you would lower rates

JoAnna Wahlund said...

So, you're saying that in EVERY SINGLE CASE of a lawmaker voting against a certain piece of legislation, their intent is ALWAYS to put money over the lives of children? Putting aside the fact that you can't prove it, that's called a false dilemma fallacy.

Considering said...

No I didn't say that is true in every single case, you did. I said it happens with startling frequency. They probably have various intent - money, votes, religion, ideology - which are meaningful to them personally and meaningless to the kid who goes to school hungry

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Which pro-lifers advocate killing inconvenient toddlers? Links, please?

There are a whole lot of pro-choicers advocating for infanticide: http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5.toc

Every single pro-life person I know works hard to create such an environment. The difference is, we think such an environment should have its roots in the local community, and not be solely the purview of the federal government. See here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

JoAnna Wahlund said...

And once again, please provide evidence to back up your claim.

Considering said...

Sorry, it's hard to make sarcasm work online. I was talking about the common and old tactic of "trotting out a toddler" that prolife is enamored of and no one takes seriously but prolife.


Local community groups are great and provide some good services but they are small, can't scale, can't cope with a rapid change, are often based on volunteers who may or may not have the correct skills necessary, and are funded in a piecemeal way that doesn't let itself to stability

JoAnna Wahlund said...

You're making pretty broad generalizations. Check out Catholic Charities and St. Vincent de Paul, for example. And please, read this: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

Considering said...

Oh there are lots of religious based charities - in fact I attempted to find a CPC for to assist a woman who wanted to keep her baby but needed one that was non-christian, and we couldn't in her area.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Thanks for admitting that Christians are in the majority when it comes to striving to provide women with viable abortion alternatives.

What area are you in, though? And why did the woman "need" help from non-Christian sources only?

Considering said...

From the link I take it you are also anti-birth control? and not especially secular

Considering said...

Christians are in the majority for attempting to impose their religion on others by any means available


She had grown up with and around christians all her life who had treated her badly and in a time of crisis was not prepared to increase her distress by being in situations where she felt extra uncomfortable, didn't feel she could trust the people she was seeking assistance from


Is asking for a secular cpc asking for so much?

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Wha....? I've visited several Christian-based CPCs, and they make it a policy never to "impose" religion on anyone. They'll pray with a mother or provide religious-based counseling if requested by her, but their primary objective is to aid and support her and her unborn child in any way they can, regardless of her religion.

Where are you getting this idea that all CPCs exist solely to impose religion? Have you ever visited one?

Again, what area are you in? I can research CPCs in your area and see if I can find any that are secular, in the event that you want to have that information on hand.

More secular CPCs would be great! Unfortunately, many secular folk prefer to give money to Planned Parenthood, which offers zero support and care to women who choose to keep their babies.

Considering said...

Buffalo NYC. Sure I'm always looking for decent resources. This mother chose other options but there is a network of us who assist that I can share info with


Part of the problem is that for you mentions of religion are probably no big deal, for some of us, the offer to pray is already too much, if you have been abused by members of that community, often there are triggers.


I think that already being under stress is a bad time to have to split hairs if there could be options available that were just comfortable


Secular people prefer planned parenthood because we trust them more than CPCs

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Given the propensity of PP (and the abortion industry as a whole) for Medicaid fraud, covering up child abuse (e.g., statutory rape), killing women via unsafe practices (Gosnell, Karpen, Carhart), that's very sad. No one has ever died from visiting a CPC.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

I think you misread me. I said in my experience, CPC staff will only pray with a woman if (the woman) initiates the request. Obviously, I can't speak for all CPCs, but that has been the policy in all the ones that I've visited.

Here is a pregnancy care center in Buffalo: http://www.buffalocare.org They do not identify any religious affiliation on their site.

Considering said...

I didn't misread. What many christians don't understand that for a non-believer going to a site and reading about "gods will", visiting a CPC and hearing Jesus references sprinkled into conversation, or seeing references to scripture, even if it's not overt, it's uncomfortable, and it's not something they want to deal with.


Many people simply don't trust christians


Thanks for the link, I'll add that to the information we have and pass it along

AbortionIsOk said...

No back ally abortions are not necessary because of the plan B pill. If needed, it will be purchased on the black market relatively cheap.

guest said...

The answer to abuse is to stop the abuser, never to kill one of its victims.

Coyote said...

"Is the core of your dispute with abortion that men have to pay child
support so women should always have to go though unplanned pregnancies
as a form of balance? payback?"

Not quite. First of all, this isn't payback as much as it is protecting my rights. Secondly, I also have a huge problem with the pro-choice view of personhood, since the only convincing pro-choice view of personhood which I have seen could also be used to justify elective painless infanticide in certain cases, which is obviously not an option (in regards to the law in the foreseeable future, et cetera).

"If my rights are removed it doesn't matter if it's temporary or not. They are removed."

Well, unfortunately the whole debate over abortion, child support, and possibly some other issues is to try determining what the best move should be where there is (or where there should be) a conflict-of-rights situation.

"In my country there are laws re:mat leaves. As a self employed person
non of that applied to me, there would be no job held for me so ending
work to have my baby meant I was removing myself from the workforce with
no income."

Which country do you live in, if you don't mind me asking? I disagree with such laws--I think that self-employed individuals should also receive sufficient government assistance during their pregnancies if they genuinely need it, such as in your case.

"This is a very planned for pregnancy. The fact that the physical
symptoms made me leave 5 months early was a burden of an additional 5
months with no income. most people can't do that.

Lots of women lose their jobs over pregnancies, being off, having
unpaid time off is a massive burden. When people blow off pregnancy as
just a simple little blip in your life, it's not. It's huge. It's
transformative. And it shouldn't be taken lightly"

To be fair, we can and should fix most or all of the problems that pregnancies pose for women. I certainly oppose firing women due to their pregnancies or giving them paid time off. I strongly agree that pregnancy is not a simple little blip in one's life, and I apologize if I previously gave you that impression. I also strongly agree that pregnancy should not be taken lightly.

"If prolife was serious about lowering abortion rates they would be
working for better job protection, better mat leaves, better assistance
for mothers/children"

I completely agree with you on this part.

"LOL that's cute: " *not* particularly repulsed by gay sex, especially when there is no or little tongue-kissing involved)." "

How exactly is this cute or funny? Simply because I am straight does not necessarily mean that I am completely repulsed by gay sex. I am simply not turned on by it.

Coyote said...

"Temporarily stripping me of my rights while forcing me to go through a
process against my will that will transform my body, screw with my
career, my emotions, relationships, is still stripping my of my rights
and it's a cold comfort to be reassured in the best "there there dear"
tones that it's only for a little while and to suit the qualms of
strangers."

To be fair, in many/most cases, AFAIK, the damage to one's body which is done during one's pregnancy is at least mostly temporary. In regards to your career, I already previously stated that I support laws which prevents pregnancy from messing with one's career (as much as reasonably possible). In regards to your emotions and to your relationships with some other people, I am genuinely sorry about this, but the "liberaltarian" (liberal + libertarian) views which I try my best to subscribe to try determining the best ways to deal with a conflict-of-rights situation. Unfortunately, this could lead to some individuals being very happy and/or feeling like they got screwed, and while I would support efforts to help these individuals, I also want to point out that how biology, et cetera works is still partially out of our control for the time being, so we do not have 100% contraception yet, et cetera.

In regards to suiting the qualms of strangers, simply because someone is a stranger does not make his or her position on a particular issue any less valid, since otherwise it appears to be an example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

There. I think that I have now responded to all of your points here. Also, again, how exactly do you know that cryogenic preservation will never be successful and that anti-aging/rejuvenative medical technology will never be created/invented and commercialized?

Considering said...

"To be fair, in many/most cases, AFAIK, the damage to one's body which is done during one's pregnancy is at least mostly temporary."

To be fair you have no idea what you're talking about, I don't consider the changes that happened to me in any way temporary

"In regards to your career, I already previously stated that I support laws which prevents pregnancy from messing with one's career (as much as reasonably possible)."

Until those changes are made, why should women have to deal with the fallout of an abortion ban? Make an environment more encouraging to having children, then see if that helps

" In regards to your emotions and to your relationships with some other people, I am genuinely sorry about this,"

Which makes no difference at all. It's my life. my relationships, and there is no reason for me to be forced into a situation in which my entire life is up for grabs in order to carry to term a pregnancy I didn't want.

"There. I think that I have now responded to all of your points here."

you did :) and none of that make any impact at all

È Also, again, how exactly do you know that cryogenic preservation will never be successful and that anti-aging/rejuvenative medical technology will never be created/invented and commercialized?È


Tell you what, if it becomes a viable medical option we can talk about how to regulate it


But on the topic, what if a woman wanted the procedure done, was forced against her will to have a child, bearing that burden financially, and that kept HER from accessing the techololgy...is that still fair

ES said...

Unfortunately the US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health and National Center for Biotechnology Information has the evidence to contradict this posting. Try looking at the empirical evidence, instead of your feelings.... do what is right for you but stop forcing your views on other women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

Logically Angry said...

Well here's the problem with this article. Women weren't stupid before Roe v Wade- they sought back alley abortions because they were suppressed and desperate. Outlaw abortion and you're just pushing them back into that "lesser" position in society. Women didn't just suddenly grow brains after Roe v Wade. Maybe you should try to grow one now though.

Linddykal said...

This comment got 6 upvotes? Gross.

Linddykal said...

I heard this once and I think it's relevant. If someone asked you to drop either a 6 week old fetus to the ground or a born baby you'd save the baby. Why? Because there's a difference and you know it.

Linddykal said...

She excused herself from a conversation that was going on in circles from people whose minds were made up and had no interest in what she had to say.

JoAnna Wahlund said...

Logical fallacy. If someone was holding a toddler and a newborn and dropped them both, and you dove for the newborn, would it mean that you regarded the toddler as a subhuman non-person? No, you saved the one who had the worst chance of surviving the fall. Similarly, you'd go for the baby in your example because embryos in a Petri dish are already dying if they're not cryogenically stored under lab conditions.

Drew Hymer said...

It is simple. It might not be easy. Doing the right thing is often not easy.

myintx said...

Unless a woman's health is truly endangered from the pregnancy and abortion is the only way to save her life then no one should have the 'right' to kill an unborn child.

- A child of rape is a human being - just as much as any other child. A child conceived from rape has 1/2 the woman's DNA, it wont come out looking like a clone of the rapist or with the words 'rape baby' on it's forehead. Besides, if a woman doesn't want her baby, she can give it up for adoption. Pam Stenzel was conceived in rape. She’s a real person. She is glad to be alive. She is pro-llife. Monica was conceived in rape. She is glad to be alive. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/05/09/her-4-minute-story-could-totally-change-the-way-you-look-at-abortion-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest/
- A woman in an abusive relationship may want her child. Do you want the 'father' getting his way and forcing her to kill? If a woman is in an abusive relationship, it's the MAN that should pay the price for the abuse, not an unborn child who has done nothing wrong.
- Ultrasounds have been wrong before and healthy (or healthier than expected) babies have been born. Killing because a child might have a birth defect is selfish and wrong.
- Really? You approve of killing unborn children to hide the results of an affair? What if a woman had an affair but didn't think the baby was the result of the affair until it was born? Should she be able to kill it at the hospital and tell the doctors - "respect my privacy and don't tell my husband about this"?
Abortion is never safe for the unborn child. There is more than one human being involved in a pregnancy. Every innocent human being should have a right to life.

Ekke said...

Let's not ban murder and rape because no-one should decide what I should do. It's OK if I decide I won't rape/murder. It's not OK when the state decides for me.

Ekke said...

Nazism was legal.

Ekke said...

How's that relevant? Fact remains that some innocent baby died because she was unwanted.

Ekke said...

If this were true, then we shouldn't judge men who rape women because life isn't black and white.

jsv said...

"the pro-choice argument about "back-alley" abortions assumes that women are stupid and/or without meaningful agency."

But you're taking away women's agency by limiting the choices they make. In case you don't know (which it seems you don't) agency means the ability to make choices. If it were because woman were stupid, they would have back alley abortions now. Maybe because it's cheaper, or more convenient. But they don't. Because women who get abortions are smart enough to know that it's safer to go to a legal facility with safety and medical standards than have some unlicensed neighbor do it, even if it's cheaper and closer. All pro-choicers/pro-aborts know this.

You clearly disrespect women's agency, since you think you have to force them into not having abortions by making it illegal. If you really think every intelligent, mentally sound woman would not have an abortion, why even bother making it illegal?

jsv said...

I recently became aware of the fact that women are dying from black-market silicone butt injections.
Cosmetic surgery is obviously legal, but legitimate doctors refuse to
perform this particular procedure due to its risks. The alternative
procedures that cosmetic surgeons are willing to do are prohibitively
expensive. So you have a situation where women are risking their lives
to exercise full control over their bodies.



Raise your hand if you think that the solution to the butt injection
problem is to make the procedure available on demand and without
apology.

*raises hand* Especially since most women who are dying from this procedure are trans women in the sex industry who can't get hormones to change their bodies to match their psychological needs and who need a more feminine figure for their livelihood (the nature of their work).

jsv said...

As you said, they die because the procedure is illegal and unsafe. They inject cement into these women's butts. That would never be legal. Just like the procedures used for back alley abortions would never be legal. If they had access to horomones (which most would prefer instead of any surgery all together) or legal and safe cosmetic surgery, they wouldn't die!

And again, you claim to support women's agency, while simultaneously insulting the choices they make -- even one that everyone can agree hurts no one but possibly the person electing the procedure!